Missing Deadline in PerpetualVault::deposit function allows delayed execution
Summary
The deposit() function queues share minting for later execution via nextAction when positionIsClosed is false, but lacks a deadline parameter. This allows deposits to be executed at any future time without user-specified time constraints.
Vulnerability Details
When positionIsClosed is false, the deposit does not mint shares immediately. Instead, it is deferred through nextAction, which relies on external execution. However, since there is no deadline parameter, the deposit can remain unprocessed indefinitely or not be executed for a very long time.
Impact
Deposits can be executed long after submission, potentially at unfavorable market conditions.
inancial losses due to market fluctuations.
Tools Used
Manual Review
Recommendations
add a deadline parameter to the deposit function:
This simple change provides users control over the maximum execution time of their deposits.
Lead Judging Commences
Admin is trusted / Malicious keepers
Please read the CodeHawks documentation to know which submissions are valid. If you disagree, provide a coded PoC and explain the real likelihood and the detailed impact on the mainnet without any supposition (if, it could, etc) to prove your point. Keepers are added by the admin, there is no "malicious keeper" and if there is a problem in those keepers, that's out of scope. ReadMe and known issues states: " * System relies heavily on keeper for executing trades * Single keeper point of failure if not properly distributed * Malicious keeper could potentially front-run or delay transactions * Assume that Keeper will always have enough gas to execute transactions. There is a pay execution fee function, but the assumption should be that there's more than enough gas to cover transaction failures, retries, etc * There are two spot swap functionalies: (1) using GMX swap and (2) using Paraswap. We can assume that any swap failure will be retried until success. " " * Heavy dependency on GMX protocol functioning correctly * Owner can update GMX-related addresses * Changes in GMX protocol could impact system operations * We can assume that the GMX keeper won't misbehave, delay, or go offline. " "Issues related to GMX Keepers being DOS'd or losing functionality would be considered invalid."
Prize pool breakdown
Live
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
Appeals
This is your time to appeal against judgements on your submissions.
Appeals Review
Appeals are being carefully reviewed by our judges.